Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:25:54 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 183024] textdump(4) mentions call doadump, should be textdump dump Message-ID: <bug-183024-9-g377l57tQq@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-183024-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-183024-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D183024 Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|doc@FreeBSD.org |bugs@FreeBSD.org CC| |doc@FreeBSD.org Component|Documentation |Manual Pages sigsys@gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sigsys@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from sigsys@gmail.com --- There's another problem with the textdump(4) example configuration. At some point doadump() was modified to take a boolean argument that indicates if textdumps should be attempted at all (if it is 0, it won't do a textdump ev= en if textdump_pending is set). I had a computer that used to do textdumps correctly that one day did not w= hen it paniced. IIUC ddb(4)'s "call" ends up passing stack garbage when argume= nts are not initialized. And it must usually have had a non-zero value for the first argument but this time it ended up being zero. Both share/man/man4/textdump.4 and sbin/ddb/ddb.conf should be modified with "call doadump(1)" or "textdump dump" (in the later case, "textdump set" wou= ld be superfluous). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-183024-9-g377l57tQq>